BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                            Complaint Case no.36 of  2016       

                                                          Date of Institution:          2.2.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:     8.3.2017

Lakhmi Chand aged about 35 years son of Shri Duli Chand, resident of village Bhuna, P.O. Chakkan, District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Unique Sales Corporation, Opposite Head Post Office, Sirsa through its Proprietor.

2. Panasonic Mobile Care Centre, Bishnoi Market, Sirsa through its authorized person.

3. Panasonic Customer Care Service, D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi- 110020.

                                                                                   ……… Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:              SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:                     Sh. Yogesh Modi, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. V.S. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.  

   ORDER

                    In brief, case of complainant is that on 9.4.2015 he had purchased a mobile handset from opposite party no.1 model Panasonic T41 for a sum of Rs.6600/-  vide bill No.19532 dated 9.4.2015 with one year warrantee. After sometime of its use, the mobile started giving troubles such as automatically switched off, voice problem, heat etc. The complainant immediately contacted op no.1 in this regard and requested to remove the defect but op no.1 sent him to op no.2 being authorized care centre. The complainant approached op no.2 who had taken the mobile from him with the assurance that problems will be removed and mobile will be handed over to him within a period of 10 days. The complainant kept on making rounds to op no.2 for a period of about one month and after one month the mobile was delivered to him with the assurance that all the problems have been removed and mobile is in ok condition. However, after one week again the mobile started giving same troubles and complainant again approached to op no.2 who after conducting minor checking told him that mobile will be sent to op no.3 for necessary repairs and issued job sheet dated 16.11.2015. That since 16.11.2015 the complainant has been making rounds to op no.2 for getting mobile but despite his repeated visits and requests, the mobile has not been delivered to him and same is still in the custody of op no.2. It is further alleged that now about two days ago, the op no.2 openly asserted that mobile will never be delivered to him. The complainant also sent a legal notice to ops on 5.1.2016  requesting them either to refund the price of the mobile or to replace the same with new one and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment etc. but to no effect Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement to the effect that op no.1 is only the retail shopkeeper and only sells the products manufactured by op no.3. He has got no other liability and op no.1 cannot be held liable for the defects in the mobile.

3.                Ops No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and availed various adjournments for filing written statement including last opportunity but did not file written statement and as such their right to file written statement was closed.

4.                By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6600/- on 9.4.2015 as is evident from bill Ex.C1. The assertions made by the complainant against opposite party no.2 are not denied and rebutted because ops No.2 & 3 have failed to file any written version and therefore, the version of the complainant that mobile in question developed above said defects within warranty period, that he has made several rounds to op no.2 for redressal of his grievances but same have not been resolved and that mobile is still lying with op no.2 since long i.e. 16.11.2015 has to be believed. In these circumstances, the case of the complainant is duly proved and he is entitled to replacement of mobile in question with a new one.

7.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to provide a new mobile of same description and same price to the complainant or to refund the price of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                            President,

Dated:8.3.2017.                                Member.           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.